Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts

Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts View ORCID Profile Javier Babí Almenar , View ORCID Profile Chiara Cortinovis , View ORCID Profile Sara Vallecillo , View ORCID Profile Davide Geneletti , Balint Czucz , View ORCID Profile Federica Marando , View ORCID Profile Grazia Zulian , View ORCID Profile Anna M Addamo , View ORCID Profile Alessandra La Notte , Renato Casagrandi doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.05.641195 Javier Babí Almenar 1 Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano , 20133 Milano, Italy 2 NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center , 90133 Palermo, Italy Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Javier Babí Almenar For correspondence: javier.babialmenar{at}polimi.it Chiara Cortinovis 3 Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento , 38123 Trento, Italy Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Chiara Cortinovis Sara Vallecillo 4 UniSystems Luxembourg Sàrl (under contract with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre) , L-8070 Bertrange, Luxembourg Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Sara Vallecillo Davide Geneletti 3 Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento , 38123 Trento, Italy Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Davide Geneletti Balint Czucz 5 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research , Torgarden, P.O. 5685, 7485 Trondheim, Norway Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Federica Marando 6 European Space Research Institute (ESRIN) , European Space Agency, 00044 Frascati, Italy 7 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) , 21027 Ispra, Italy Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Federica Marando Grazia Zulian 8 Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, Hannover University , 30167 Hannover, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Grazia Zulian Anna M Addamo 9 Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Nord University , 8049 Bodø, Norway Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Anna M Addamo Alessandra La Notte 10 European Dynamics Luxembourg S.A. (under contract with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre) , L-1466 Luxembourg , Luxembourg Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Alessandra La Notte Renato Casagrandi 1 Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano , 20133 Milano, Italy 2 NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center , 90133 Palermo, Italy Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Preview PDF Abstract The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting-Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA), adopted by UNSD, provides a standardized global framework for measuring and monitoring ecosystems’ extent, condition, and services. However, its application to urban ecosystems faces conceptual and operational challenges. Building on SEEA-EA, we propose advancing the framework for thematic urban ecosystem accounting, identifying main challenges and framing potential solutions based on existing lessons and approaches. Through a literature review on ecosystem accounting and urban science, we identified 24 challenges, with lessons and approaches suggested for 17 of them. Results show that many challenges are highly interconnected and shared with accounts for other ecosystem types. Urban-specific challenges include a lack of consensus in defining urban ecosystems, their specific assets, and their classifications. Additionally, findings highlight the need for defining appropriate methods to capture socio-ecological degradation, impacts, and dependencies of urban ecosystems. Suggested solutions include adapting the accounting structure and prioritizing the resolution of urban- specific challenges. 1. Main Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems are cornerstones of human health and well-being, underpinning ecosystem service supply. Yet, both continue to decline 1 – 5 . It is therefore crucial to track changes in the status of ecosystems and biodiversity, along with their societal and economic impacts, in a regular, consistent, and comparable manner. Ecosystem accounts provide a structured framework for measuring and monitoring the extent and condition of ecosystems, their service flows, and their value as assets 6 , 7 . Their implementation is expected to support policymaking across sectors and governance levels, from international to local 8 – 10 . Recognizing the value of ecosystem accounts to inform sustainable ecosystem management, countries are increasingly adopting them through legislation 11 , 12 . Ecosystem accounts may be applied to any ecosystem type, including anthropogenic ones. Urban ecosystems - characterized by the presence of people and a mix of natural and artificial features 13 - are particularly relevant from an ecosystem accounting perspective. As primary habitats for humans and hotspots of ecosystem services’ demand, urban ecosystems are key drivers of global and local biodiversity changes 14 – 18 . A global framework for urban ecosystem accounts would be a valuable instrument for the still-emergent urban science-policy-practice networks 19 , helping to translate knowledge into informed actions that address biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem-Accounting (SEEA-EA), adopted in 2021 by the UN Statistical Commission, is the globally recognized statistical standard for ecosystem accounts 13 . SEEA-EA is a spatially-based integrated statistical framework applicable to all ecosystem types, including urban ecosystems. It comprises five core accounting tables: 1) ecosystem extent, 2) ecosystem condition, 3) ecosystem service flows in biophysical terms, 4) ecosystem service flows in monetary terms, and 5) monetary ecosystem assets. The first three are adopted as part of the statistical standard, while the developments for the last two are currently recognized only as statistical principles and recommendations 13 , 20 . A glossary of key SEEA-EA terms is provided in the Supplementary Information (SI)1. Although SEEA-EA may be applied to compile urban ecosystem accounts, the current scientific conceptualisation of urban ecosystems conflicts with some of SEEA-EA’s core principles. For instance, SEEA-EA requires ecosystem assets to represent ecosystems and be mutually exclusive conceptually and geographically 13 . However, as conceptualised by urban and landscape ecologists, urban ecosystems are heterogeneous landscape mosaics of fine-grained patches (ecosystem assets) representing multiple ecosystem types, with boundaries that are often fuzzy 21 , 22 . Additionally, ecosystem condition in urban ecosystems is shaped not only by natural abiotic and biotic components but also by social and technological factors 23 , 24 , which SEEA-EA does not currently account for 25 . Consequently, degradation in urban ecosystems is not solely ecological but also socio-ecological. Failing to acknowledge these aspects when developing a global framework for urban ecosystem accounting risks creating a framework perceived as inadequate or illegitimate by urban ecologists and related science-policy-practice networks, ultimately leading to a misuse. To overcome such inconsistencies, SEEA-EA encourages the development of thematic accounts for urban ecosystems 13 . Thematic accounts provide greater flexibility than traditional SEEA-EA accounts, hereafter, referred to as SEEA-EA general accounts. However, the UN Statistical Commission has yet to formally adopt thematic accounts as part of the statistical standard or recognize them as part of formal principles and recommendations 13 , 20 . In fact, thematic urban ecosystem accounts remain underdeveloped as a standard, potentially leading to inconsistencies with SEEA-EA general accounts and the proliferation of multiple incompatible local or regional frameworks 26 . This issue threatens the ability of SEEA-EA to support sustainable urban ecosystem management in a globally coherent way. Thus, developing a global framework for urban ecosystem accounting in the form of thematic SEEA- EA accounts is essential. This framework must integrate seamlessly with SEEA-EA general accounts and enable a unified, systematic approach for urban ecosystem accounting. Achieving this requires identifying and addressing remaining challenges posed by SEEA-EA when applied to urban ecosystems. This paper aims to advance the development of the global framework for urban ecosystem accounting, further standardizing SEEA-EA thematic accounts by: Identifying key conceptual and operational challenges for thematic urban ecosystem accounts. Conceptual challenges pertain to unresolved theoretical issues, while operational challenges involve practical gaps or issues that should be addressed to establish clear procedures. Presenting lessons learnt and approaches from past experiences to inform potential solutions. Lessons point either to univocal solutions or to key constraints when addressing specific challenges, while approaches represent potential alternatives that occasionally appear contradictory in the literature. Challenges, approaches and lessons were identified through a review of key SEEA-EA documents, followed by a systematic review of both grey and scientific literature on ecosystem accounting. These reviews were supplemented by a thematic review of scientific literature on challenges relevant beyond accounting. 2. Results The review encompassed 130 documents, including 87 from the systematic review on ecosystem accounting, of which 50 were case studies. These case studies were conducted within 19 countries at local, regional, or national levels, with some in Europe developed at a transnational level. Only studies from six countries specifically addressed urban ecosystem accounts ( Fig. 1 ). Across these documents, 24 challenges were identified ( Table 1 ), 13 of which are conceptual. Lessons and approaches were identified for 18 challenges ( Table 2 ). Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 1 Case studies of ecosystem accounts (light red), differentiating those focused exclusively on urban ecosystem accounts (red). World map showing countries where ecosystem accounts were tested in the reviewed literature. The bar chart displays the number of case studies per country. The case studies applied SEEA-EA, its previous experimental version, or, in a few cases, very similar ad-hoc frameworks that referred to SEEA-EA. Note: *Case studies of ecosystem accounting developed at European level, including 25 or more countries. **One document includes three case studies from Finland and one from Norway, which are counted as independent cases. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1 Challenges of thematic urban ecosystem accounting, grouped by SEEA-EA account table, relevant ecosystem types (classified as U: urban; AE: anthropogenic ecosystems, including urban ecosystems; MAE: Most or All Ecosystems), and challenge types (C: Conceptual; O: Operational). Additional details for each challenge are provided in Supplementary Information (SI3). View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 2 Lessons (L) and approaches (A) for thematic urban ecosystem accounting organized by account table and challenge type (challenge Ids as in Table 1 ). Additional details for each L and A are provided in Supplementary Information (SI4). Challenges specific to urban and anthropogenic ecosystems, the focus of the following sections, were identified exclusively within extent, condition, and cross-cutting categories. The latter refers to challenges relevant to multiple accounting tables. Further details on the data gathered, as well as descriptions of all identified challenges, approaches and lessons, are provided in SI.2–4. 2.1. Characterisation and classification of urban ecosystems and their fine-scale patches The literature reviewed highlights a lack of consensus on the definition and characterization of urban ecosystems 27 , 28 , 31 – 34 . Specifically, the distinction between artificial surfaces and urban ecosystem assets remains ambiguous ( Table 1 - Challenge [Ch.]1), with accounting exercises not always classifying the same set of features as urban ecosystem assets 28 , 31 . This variability partly arises from how the boundaries of urban ecosystem accounts are defined (Ch.2). While several approaches have been proposed to determine which artificial surfaces qualify as urban ecosystem assets, no consensus has been reached 47 , 116 , 117 . A key suggested criterion is that, to qualify as an urban ecosystem asset, artificial surfaces must be related to built-up areas where humans reside 47 , 116 . This criterion seeks to exclude isolated infrastructures (e.g., mining sites, energy-related facilities) that are not physically or functionally tied to specific human settlements. There is also no agreed-upon ecologically sound classification system to divide urban ecosystems into groups of homogeneous ecosystem areas (Ch.3) 43 , 45 – 47 . Globally, urban ecosystems are often treated as a single homogeneous group 149 . However, they span multiple regions, biomes and climates, exhibiting different urban forms shaped by surrounding environments, historical legacies, and variations in socio-demographic, ecological, and technological characteristics ( Fig. 2 ). Scholars are exploring potential classification approaches, such as those based on urban ecoregions, growth patterns, and morphology, to categorize urban ecosystems into multiple coherent groups of homogeneous ecosystem areas 39 , 43 , 45 – 47 , 118 , 122 – 127 . Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 2 Visualization of the diverse climates, (eco)regions, and environmental and socio-demographic characteristics across which urban ecosystems extend worldwide, underscoring the relevance of classifying these systems into multiple groups of homogeneous ecosystem areas. a) Global distribution of urban and industrial ecosystems, as defined in the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology149,153, overlaid on a global map of Köppen-Geiger climate classes154, illustrating the range of climates on which urban ecosystems are present. b) Aerial imagery snapshots (Sentinel-2 False Color Composite, 2021) of 10 urban ecosystems worldwide. In these illustrative snapshots, vegetation appears in red, while annotations highlight key factors such as population, environmental conditions, and ecoregion—underscoring the global diversity of urban ecosystems. The data for these factors come from the GHS Urban Centre Database R2024 of the Joint Research Centre, which delineates individual urban ecosystems based on the Degree of Urbanisation approach. Similarly, there is no consensus on an ecologically sound classification for the fine-scale patches (assets) that compose urban ecosystems (Ch.4) 28 , 30 , 50 , 52 , 133 , 150 . Traditionally, these assets are classified based on land cover and land use 47 , 134 , 135 , but alternatives, such as local climate zones 28 , have been applied in some urban ecosystem accounting studies. Several scholars advocate for asset classifications (e.g., HERCULES 135 , STURLA 151 ) that (i) avoid mixing land cover and land use, (ii) incorporate the third dimension (height), and (iii) treat interconnected artificial, natural, and semi- natural features as unified patches, preventing classification artifacts 134 , 135 , 151 , 152 . They argue that traditional classifications hinder a robust ecological understanding of how the composition and configuration of urban ecosystem assets influence ecological functions 135 , as well as condition, service supply and demand, and asset values. Both classification issues (Ch.3,4), stem from a lack of scientific consensus, as evidenced by ongoing debates within urban ecology and related fields 42 , 50 , 51 , 134 , 135 . This explains why only approaches and lessons highlighting key considerations were identified. The absence of scientific consensus similarly affects challenges that are not urban-specific, such as estimating and allocating value loss due to ecosystem degradation (Ch.16), where fundamental issues remain debated within environmental and ecological economics 58 , 74 , 76 . 2.2. Tracking socio-ecological degradation, impacts and dependencies Several limitations in condition accounts, combined with shortcomings in services and monetary ecosystem asset accounts, hinder the comprehensive tracking of urban socio-ecological impacts and dependencies. For condition accounts, scholars highlight limitations in capturing: i) local degradation that is not strictly ecological; and ii) how urban ecosystems influence the degradation of nearby and far-away assets on which they depend, which may indirectly lead to urban degradation (Ch.7). Regarding local degradation, limitations arise from excluding social and technological characteristics, leading to a partial representation of urban ecosystems (Ch.5). This omission may overlook certain types of socio-ecological degradation, such as declining public health or increasing inequalities in the distribution of ecosystem assets and services. Additionally, shortcomings may partly stem from reliance on the concept of ecological integrity to define reference conditions in urban ecosystems (Ch.6). Karr and colleagues 55 , the first a proponent of the concept of ecological integrity as referenced in SEEA-EA, note that ecological integrity, which exclude humans by definition, may not provide appropriate reference conditions (endpoints) for ecosystems under intensive human use, such as agroecosystems or urban ecosystems. Instead, they advocate for using ecological health as a more suitable concept 55 . Similar alternatives, such as urban ecosystem health, have been proposed by other authors 141 , 155 , 156 . These alternatives acknowledge humans as intrinsic components of the system, allowing characteristics of human populations and built infrastructure to be considered as condition variables 55 , 141 , 155 . Some approaches also suggest that to capture how urban ecosystems drive the degradation of nearby or far-away ecosystem assets, assessments against a reference condition should account not only for local socio-ecological degradation but also for how urban characteristics influence service demand both locally and remotely 47 , 141 , 155 . These suggestions extend beyond standard SEEA-EA rules, which typically define ecosystem condition based on the overall ecological quality of a given ecosystem in terms of its local biotic and abiotic characteristics. In effect, these approaches highlight the strong telecoupling relationships between urban ecosystems and other ecosystems 114 , 144 , driven by social, economic, and technological factors 116 , 144 . They emphasize the importance of incorporating these connections when assessing urban ecosystem condition and its changes, particularly if condition accounts are intended to inform urban sustainability analyses. Some scholars suggested to use complementary natural capital assessment frameworks, such as life cycle assessment, to characterize telecoupling relations by tracking supply-chain connections 114 , 145 , 146 . To better track socio-ecological degradation, impacts and dependencies of urban ecosystems, the literature also stresses the need for agreed-upon principles to estimate and allocate value loss from ecosystem degradation in monetary ecosystem asset accounts (Ch.16). In past studies, both ecosystem degradation and the explicit consideration of assumptions and uncertainties in modelling future ecosystem service flows (Ch.15) have often been overlooked when quantifying changes in asset values 86 , 87 . To minimise these issues, one paper suggests the use of scenario modelling 147 . 2.3. The relevance of policy uses for a coherent framework The ability to track socio-ecological impacts and dependencies through thematic urban ecosystem accounts is also influenced by how urban ecosystems are delineated (Ch.2). Different approaches, such as using municipal boundaries or buffers around built-up areas, affect the inclusion or exclusion of specific ecosystem assets, thereby influencing the consideration of transboundary effects (i.e., impacts and dependencies) 26 . Some scholars note that delineating these boundaries is not entirely objective 26 , 120 , as it partly depends on the policy uses of the accounts. Indeed, the lack of clear policy uses is highlighted as a cross-cutting challenge (Ch.19), alongside a weak policy pull, an issue also faced by SEEA-EA general accounts 90 . For thematic urban ecosystem accounts, both policy uses and spatial levels of interest (e.g., national, regional, local) can vary significantly, potentially leading to misalignments among expected policy uses at different scales. Pioneer practitioners in Australia 26 highlight that the framing of urban ecosystem accounts is strongly shaped by initial policy purposes and the spatial level at which they are developed, which differ across implementations. 3. Discussion Our work highlights a global shortage of consistent pilots on urban ecosystem accounting , which partly explains the lack of lessons and approaches ( Table 2 ) for several challenges ( Table 1 ). As illustrated in Fig.1 , large regions, including most of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, appear to have neither tested SEEA-EA general accounts nor developed specific urban ecosystem accounts. This finding aligns with the gaps in SEEA-EA implementation identified in the UN’s 2023 Global Benchmark 157 . In Europe, Lange and colleagues observed that only a few countries have tested all five SEEA-EA general accounting tables, and thematic urban ecosystem accounts have rarely been tested 158 . This scarcity of pilots partially explains the absence of complete, consistent examples that could serve as practical guidance for ecosystem accounting implementations (Ch.20). Developing such examples for thematic urban ecosystem accounts will require first defining solutions for the challenges identified and implementing them based on a logical prioritization. 3.1. From approaches and lessons learned towards specific solutions For the challenges related to the characterization and classification of urban ecosystems, we identified approaches or lessons focused on specific aspects rather than comprehensive solutions. Despite the lack of scientific consensus on which assets belong to urban ecosystems (Ch.1), it is increasingly clear to scholars that not all artificial surfaces should be considered urban. This perspective is also gaining recognition among policymakers, as illustrated by a recent amendment to the regulation on environmental accounts in the European Union 159 . As required by SEEA-EA general accounts, the amendment differentiates a broad set of mutually exclusive ecosystem types, including “Settlements and Other Artificial Areas”, which represent artificial surfaces. The amendment also refers to urban ecosystems, named “cities and their adjacent towns and suburbs”, explicitly recognizing that urban ecosystems comprise multiple types of ecosystem assets, not just artificial surfaces. This growing differentiation between urban ecosystems and artificial surfaces, reinforced by the EU policymaking example, points to two partial solutions (as illustrated on the top of Fig.3 – Solution [Sol.] 1): i) using a term other than “urban ecosystems” when referring solely to artificial surfaces, as not all belong to urban ecosystems; and ii) compiling urban accounts exclusively through thematic ecosystem accounting to avoid confusion, breaking mutual exclusivity, and reporting incomplete representations of urban ecosystems. Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 3 Visual summary of key solutions based on existing lessons and approaches. The figure presents solutions in the form of: decisions, actions to be implemented at specific steps (needs), and new accounting tables to be integrated into the SEEA-EA structure for thematic urban ecosystem accounting. For each proposed accounting table, the visual summary highlights its advantages, as challenges it may help to address, arising from the combined use of existing and newly proposed accounting tables. Additionally, the figure indicates whether ecological, social, and technological characteristics are relevant for defining each accounting table or estimating their values. Unlike the previous challenge, the delineation of urban ecosystems (Ch.2), lacks established clear approaches from both scholarly or policymaking perspectives. This is illustrated in the EU Nature Restoration Regulation 160 , where three interrelated approaches for delineating urban ecosystem areas are proposed: i) selecting (urban) municipalities based on the degree of urbanization; ii) restricting the boundaries to highly populated zones of urban municipalities; and iii) expanding the restricted boundaries to include a peri-urban buffer. While delineating ecosystem accounting areas is also difficult in other mosaic-like ecosystems, such as wetlands, and in ecosystems with highly variable ecotones, like coastal ecosystems, this challenge partly differs for urban ecosystems. In other ecosystems, asset characterization and boundary delineation are typically conducted by experts and generally accepted. In contrast, characterizing (Ch.1) and delineating (Ch.2) urban ecosystems must be credible and legitimate not only scientifically but also to other stakeholders, including policymakers, adding constraints to the development of a coherent framework for thematic urban ecosystem accounts ( Fig.3 – Solution 2). For challenges related to tracking socio-ecological degradation, impacts and dependencies of urban ecosystems, approaches and univocal lessons point towards clear solutions. Integrating social and technological variables into condition accounts would enable a more comprehensive assessment of urban degradation (Ch.5). However, this may conflict with rules of SEEA-EA general accounts, where ecosystem condition focuses on abiotic and biotic characteristics, strict ecological degradation, and there is a widely agreed-upon typology of condition variables. Directly modifying condition accounts in thematic urban ecosystem accounts could impact the interoperability with SEEA-EA general accounts. As a potential solution, we propose to create a “sister” condition table, specific to thematic accounts, in which only socio-technological characteristics are represented ( Fig.3 – Sol.4). This new table, whose structure must be agreed upon, combined with the traditional condition table, would help to capture socio-ecological degradation in urban ecosystems more comprehensively. Additionally, replacing ecological integrity with ecological health or urban ecosystem health as a conceptual basis for defining reference conditions in urban ecosystems (Ch.6) could better capture changes in socio-ecological-technological conditions, though these new concepts require refinement and testing for ecosystem accounting purposes. Furthermore, classifying urban ecosystems, and their fine-scale assets, into coherent groups would enable the tailoring of condition variables and reference conditions to specific groups ( Fig.4 – Sol. 2), thereby, informing more accurately about urban degradation. Download figure Open in new tab Fig. 4 Interrelations among the identified challenges. Challenges are represented by their Ids (as used in Table 1 ), along with brief descriptive labels. The colours indicate the type of ecosystem account each challenge pertains to. Black arrows denote challenges (arrowheads) that are constrained by specific bottlenecks (end of arrow), while grey dashed arrows indicate challenges (arrowheads) that are influenced by others (end of arrow) but do not act as strict bottlenecks. The two operational challenges inside the dashed rectangle are indirectly influenced by how the remaining challenges are resolved. This network of interrelations help determine which challenges need to be addressed first, as well as those that should be tackled simultaneously and in a coordinated manner. Further details on specific interrelations are provided in the Supplementary Information (SI5). In addition to the above solutions, integrating complementary natural capital approaches with a strong focus on the technosphere, such as life-cycle assessment, would help capture how social and technological characteristics shape services demand ( Fig.3 – Sol.5). This integration would contribute to identifying mismatches in ecosystem service flows (Ch.12), i.e., unused potential, unmet demand, and overuse (unsustainable service flow), thus capturing the socio-ecological impacts and dependencies of urban ecosystems more accurately. As stressed in the literature 58 , 97 , addressing Ch.12 first requires explicitly reporting ecosystem service potential and ecosystem service demand as individual mandatory accounting tables ( Fig.3 – Sol.6). This is not a current requisite under SEEA-EA general ecosystem accounts, which consider these accounting tables auxiliary. The integration of scenario modelling into monetary ecosystem asset accounts would also enable tracking impacts on assets’ value across different future projections while making explicit the assumptions (Ch.15) used in each scenario ( Fig.3 – Sol.7). Ideally, these scenarios should consider the effects of socio-ecological degradation and long-term service mismatches, leveraging the solutions proposed for condition and service accounts. Additionally, scenarios should integrate social and technological variables alongside climatic and environmental factors to provide more realistic projections. Scenario modelling further underscores the need for explicitly accounting of uncertainty (Ch.21), including propagated uncertainty, which can initially be addressed through simple techniques, as suggested in the literature 26 . While the proposed scheme may help address some of the open issues, solutions for others remain problematic. For certain challenges, such as defining a clear set of policy issues (Ch.19), no single correct solution exists, and resolution depends not only on scientific consensus but also on a broad agreement across science-policy-practice networks. Lessons proposed for Ch.19, 22 and 24 lead us to key recommendations for achieving this consensus: i) focus on a limited set of policy purposes, to prevent ecosystem accounting from being perceived as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ tool, which could diminish its effectiveness; ii) engage key stakeholders early in the process, ensuring representation from both producers and end users with diverse expertise; iii) foster regional networks and communities of practice to help identify policy needs across different spatial levels and regional contexts. 3.2. Interrelations of challenges and priorities for actions As illustrated in Fig.4 , challenges are closely interconnected. These connections can either be bottlenecks, where one challenge hinders the resolution of another, or influences, shaping how issues are addressed or determining the most suitable approaches when no single solution exists. Therefore, it is important not only to derive solutions to individual challenges but also to consider their interconnections to establish a logical prioritization for resolution. Fig.4 clarifies that some challenges depend on resolving multiple levels of interrelated dependencies. This is particularly true for challenges related to ecosystem service and monetary ecosystem asset accounts. For example, several interconnected challenges must be addressed before resolving shortcomings in ecosystem service accounts for capturing mismatches in service flows (Ch.12). Among other aspects, this requires consensus on what constitutes ecosystem capacity, how it should be assessed (e.g., service-by-service or systemically), and when it is exceeded (Ch.11). Without these steps, it is impossible to capture overuse (unsustainable service flows), as this requires an unequivocal definition of ecosystem capacity. In turn, Ch.11 itself depends on resolving bottlenecks related to ecosystem extent and condition ( Fig. 4 ). Thus, challenges must be tackled with a logical prioritization, avoiding premature attempts to address those constrained by multiple bottlenecks, which would be counterproductive and may necessitate repeated revisions. Instead, certain challenges related to extent (Ch.1-4), cross-cutting (Ch.19,21,23,24), and condition (Ch.5,6) are primary bottlenecks, being minimally or not constrained by other challenges. Prioritizing their resolution will unlock progress for other challenges. For instance, defining the policy uses that accounts should serve (Ch.19) strongly influences the development of a consistent framework for thematic urban ecosystem accounts, as policy needs strongly shape implementation 26 and influence how multiple other challenges are addressed. Thus, to achieve a coherent global framework for thematic urban ecosystem accounting, it is a top priority to define early on a clear and consistent set of potential policy uses, agreed at international level. Addressing primary bottlenecks that are not urban-specific will also benefit SEEA-EA general accounting and other ecosystem types. However, resolving these challenges cannot emerge solely from within the urban ecosystem accounting community, requiring broader consensus to ensure interoperability with SEEA-EA general accounts. Consequently, experts in thematic urban ecosystem accounting should first focus on challenges specific to urban or anthropogenic ecosystems, and minimally constrained (Ch.1–6,19), as these require less coordination. Meanwhile, cross-cutting and condition challenges relevant to most ecosystem types and similarly unconstrained (Ch.8,20–24) should be addressed next, in collaboration with SEEA-EA general experts. SI-5 offers further details on specific interrelations, including those not discussed here. Addressing the identified challenges through a stepwise approach, building on existing lessons and approaches, will accelerate the advancement of standardized thematic urban ecosystem accounts. These accounts may become crucial for enhancing our understanding of urban ecosystems and supporting their sustainable management in a globally coherent manner. However, even once these challenges are resolved, ecosystem accounting, like any framework, will still have inherent limitations. While it can serve as a valuable tool for informing policies that promote urban sustainability, it should not be regarded as the sole tool. 4. Methods Challenges, lessons, and approaches for urban ecosystem accounts were identified through a structured review of scientific and grey literature, following three consecutive steps. First, key SEEA-EA documents 13 , 25 , 161 were reviewed. Second, a systematic review of scientific and grey literature on ecosystem accounting was conducted. Third, a thematic review of additional scientific literature (not-accounting related) was carried out for those urban-specific challenges that go beyond accounting, i.e., remaining open issues in urban sciences. Each step is detailed below and visually summarised in SI2. The raw data gathered in the review can be consulted in SI6. 4.1. Step 1: Review of key SEEA-EA documents The review began with the SEEA-EA Handbook 13 , including its section on a research and development agenda. It then extended to pitches (presentations) from the Virtual Expert Forum of SEEA experimental ecosystem accounting 161 and discussion papers of the working groups for the SEEA experimental ecosystem accounting revision, available on the SEEA website 25 . Some of these discussion papers had already been published as peer-review articles or technical reports, or referenced additional relevant literature. This step aimed to compile an initial list of key challenges, drawing from both the SEEA-EA Handbook and broader expert discussions in the Forum and Working Groups, capturing details that may not have been included in the handbook. 4.2. Step 2: Systematic review of ecosystem accounting literature The review combined an iterative literature review via an online “literature mapping tool” with a traditional systematic literature review. In the iterative approach, the key SEEA-EA documents and references of interest cited in them were used as input data to identify other studies by making use of the online tool Connected Papers ( https://connectedpapers.com ). This tool uses an input document (e.g., peer-reviewed paper) to build a graph of documents (e.g., papers, books, chapters) that share references and co-citations with the input 162 – 164 . This approach helps to overcome typical issues of systematic reviews (e.g., missing keywords in the search strings) that could lead to missing key references 163 . It might help to find relevant references in emergent areas of studies where diverse keywords are still in use, as could be the case in urban ecosystem accounting studies. Prior and derived works were screened as detailed below and once new relevant studies were identified, they were also used as an input in Connected Papers. By iterating the process until no new relevant paper was appearing, a comprehensive list of studies was retrieved The traditional systematic review was applied to ensure completeness, helping to identify additional literature. It followed a traditional systematic review approach, similar to previous studies 165 , 166 , and consistently with PRISMA guidelines 167 , 168 . The literature was gathered from Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google. In all cases, the broad search string “ecosystem account*” was used and the studies were limited to those written in English and published after 2012. This is the year in which the SEEA experimental ecosystem accounting framework, that led to the SEEA-EA, was developed 169 . The search string was intentionally broad to avoid missing documents of potential relevance. The keyword “urban” was intentionally excluded since there might be studies that integrate accounts for more than one ecosystem, without explicitly referring to “urban” (or use a related word) in the title, abstract or keywords. There might be also cases focused on other ecosystems or type of thematic ecosystem accounts, such as ocean, that include also challenges of relevance for thematic urban ecosystem accounts. The traditional approach helped to make the systematic review more exhaustive ensuring that relevant references were not missed. Moreover, the inclusion of Google Scholar and Google was useful to identify technical grey literature of potential interest, which was not captured in Web of Science or Scopus. In the traditional systematic review, first, the title, abstracts and keywords of the studies gathered were screened retaining only: i) urban ecosystem accounts and related studies; ii) broad ecosystem accounts that included urban ecosystems; iii) other thematic ecosystem accounts, which discussed challenges that might be also relevant for thematic urban ecosystem accounts. The same criteria were then applied to further screen the full text of retained papers. Only studies applying the SEEA-EA framework, or its previous experimental version, were retained. As an exception, retained publications also included: i) studies discussing general shortcomings of ecosystem accounting frameworks, which apply also to SEEA-EA; ii) studies comparing advantages and disadvantages of SEEA-EA against other frameworks, provided that the challenges discussed were relevant for thematic urban ecosystem accounts. Studies that introduce concepts or methodologies related to SEEA-EA without specifically addressing conceptual/operational challenges for urban ecosystems or presenting lessons learnt were discarded. The same screening procedure and criteria were used for the studies gathered through the iterative approach. In that case, the screening of the abstract and full text was done before each new iteration, since retained papers were those used as inputs in new iterations. The traditional systematic review and iterative literature review helped to identify challenges missed in key SEEA-EA documents as well as to further inform and better organise challenges already included in the initial draft list. After analysing all the studies, the challenges were organised in a final list, each of them corresponding to an aggregation of specific problems around a common theme. Challenges were classified in conceptual or operational ones, and according to: i) the type of ecosystem accounting table to which they refer; and ii) their urban specificity. Conceptual challenges refer to the development or refinement of theoretical concepts onto which the implementation of thematic urban ecosystem accounts should be based. Operational challenges refer to practical developments needed to set up clear and coherent procedures for implementing thematic urban ecosystem accounts. Based on the type of accounting table to which they referred, challenges were classified as: i) ecosystem extent, ii) ecosystem condition, iii) ecosystem services (biophysical and monetary), or iv) monetary ecosystem asset. Challenges relevant to more than one type of accounting table were classified as cross-cutting. Based on the urban specificity, challenges were classified as: i) specific to urban ecosystem accounts; ii) shared among accounts for anthropogenic ecosystems; iii) relevant to accounts of most or all types of ecosystems, including urban ecosystems. The traditional systematic review and iterative literature review also helped to identify additional publications from which lessons and approaches could be drawn. Lessons are outcomes that instruct univocally on solutions to address a challenge or on relevant aspects to consider. Instead, approaches showcase alternative solutions followed by different authors for structuring an aspect of thematic urban ecosystem accounts, but which are not solved univocally among authors. Then the lack of an agreement might lead to diverse (incompatible) accounting structures, unless consensus is reached. The aggregation and organisation of lessons and approaches considered the specific challenge(s) to which they were related. Besides recording challenges and lessons, the following data were recorded for each selected document: i) the type of document (scientific or grey literature); ii) the presence of a case study and its country; iii) the ecosystem types covered by the accounting (urban, multiple ecosystems including urban, other); iv) the focus of the ecosystem account (specific components or the entire ecosystem); and v) the type of ecosystem accounts (extent, condition, services in biophysical units [potential, actual flow - supply, actual flow - use], services in monetary units [potential, actual flow – supply, actual flow – use], and monetary ecosystem assets). These data provided contextual information about the retained ecosystem accounting studies. 4.3. Step 3: Thematic review of non-accounting literature A thematic review of additional scientific literature (non-accounting related) was conducted to complement the collection of lessons and approaches for urban specific challenges that go beyond accounting. Specifically, the thematic review focused on challenges related to classification of urban ecosystems, suitable theoretical references for urban ecosystem condition or status, and appropriate evaluation of ecological degradation in urban ecosystems. These challenges, and associated lessons and approaches, belong to “hot topics” in urban sciences that have been already discussed by academics also outside ecosystem accounting. Therefore, in those cases, scientific studies outside ecosystem accounting were considered valuable sources for lessons and approaches. The thematic review replicated the procedure of the iterative systematic literature review. Initial input documents consisted of studies identified in the systematic review, supplemented by additional key papers known to the authors. Supplementary Information Supplementary Information 1. Glossary of key ecosystem accounting terminology. Supplementary Information 2. Methodological workflow and overview of the data gathered in the literature review. Supplementary Information 3. Description of challenges. Supplementary Information 4. Description of lessons and approaches. Supplementary Information 5 . Justification of the interrelations among challenges. Supplementary Information 6. Data and metadata from documents in the structured review of scientific and grey literature on urban ecosystem accounts. Acknowledgements The authors used ChatGPT-4 to assist with proofreading and writing adjustments. All content was written, reviewed, and edited by the authors. All data analysis, review, and editing were conducted solely by the authors without the use of AI tools. JBA and RC acknowledge support from the National Biodiversity Future Centre (NBFC) project funded by the European Union’s NextGenerationEU, National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), CN00000033, CUP, H43C22000530001. Details of further funding sources supporting this research will be included at a later stage. References 1. ↵ Pereira , H. M. et al. Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050 . Science (1979) 384 , 458 – 465 ( 2024 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 2. Loreau , M. et al. Do not downplay biodiversity loss . Nature 601 , E27 – E28 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 3. Sarran , C. & Harvey , E . Ecology: Experimental enclosures reveal effects of invertebrate biodiversity decline . Current Biology vol. 33 R1054 – R1057 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2023.09.017 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 4. Jaureguiberry , P. et al. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss . Sci Adv 8 , 9982 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 5. ↵ Soto-Navarro , C. A. et al. Towards a multidimensional biodiversity index for national application . Nat Sustain 4 , 933 – 942 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 6. ↵ Comte , A. et al. Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges . Ecosystem Services vol. 58 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101486 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 7. ↵ Hein , L. , Obst , C. , Edens , B. & Remme , R. P . Progress and challenges in the development of ecosystem accounting as a tool to analyse ecosystem capital . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability vol. 14 86 – 92 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.04.002 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 8. ↵ Edens , B. et al. Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard . Ecosyst Serv 54 , 101413 ( 2022 ). 9. La Notte , A. & Zulian , G . An Ecosystem Services-Based Approach to Frame NBS in Urban Context . in Nature-Based Solutions for More Sustainable Cities – A Framework Approach for Planning and Evaluation 47 – 65 ( Emerald Publishing Limited , 2021 ). doi: 10.1108/978-1-80043-636-720211005 . OpenUrl CrossRef 10. ↵ Nel , J. L. & Driver , A . National River Ecosystem Accounts for South Africa. Discussion Document for Advancing SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Project . https://www.statssa.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/National-River-Ecosystem-Accounts-Discussion-Document-FINAL.pdf ( 2015 ). 11. ↵ Bagstad , K. J. et al. Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union . Ecosyst Serv 52 , 101359 ( 2021 ). 12. ↵ European Commission . Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 as regards introducing new environmental economic accounts modules . Preprint at ( 2022 ). 13. ↵ United Nations . System of Environmental-Economic Accounting— Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). White Cover Publication, Pre-Edited Text Subject to Official Editing . https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting ( 2021 ). 14. ↵ Elliot , T. et al. An expanded framing of ecosystem services is needed for a sustainable urban future . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 , ( 2022 ). 15. Brondízio , E. Sonnewend ., Settele , Josef ., Díaz , Sandra . & Ngo , H. Thu . The Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . ( Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES ), 2019 ). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831673 . OpenUrl CrossRef 16. Isbell , F. et al. Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people . Front Ecol Environ 21 , 94 – 103 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 17. Maxwell , S. L. , Fuller , R. A. , Brooks , T. M. & Watson , J. E. M . Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers . Nature 536 , 143 – 145 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 18. ↵ Elliot , T. , Goldstein , B. , Gómez-Baggethun , E. , Proença , V. & Rugani , B . Ecosystem service deficits of European cities . Science of the Total Environment 837 , ( 2022 ). 19. ↵ Bai , X. et al. Networking urban science, policy and practice for sustainability . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability vol. 39 114 – 122 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.08.002 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 20. ↵ Edens , B. et al. Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard . Ecosyst Serv 54 , 101413 ( 2022 ). 21. ↵ Grimm , N. B. et al. Global change and the ecology of cities . Science (1979) 319 , 756 – 760 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 22. ↵ Wu , J . Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions . Landsc Urban Plan 125 , 209 – 221 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 23. ↵ Cimburova , Z. & Berghauser Pont , M. Location matters. A systematic review of spatial contextual factors mediating ecosystem services of urban trees . Ecosystem Services vol. 50 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101296 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 24. ↵ Larson , S. et al. Piecemeal stewardship activities miss numerous social and environmental benefits associated with culturally appropriate ways of caring for country . J Environ Manage 326 , ( 2023 ). 25. ↵ United Nations . SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision . SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision https://seea.un.org/content/seea-experimental-ecosystem-accounting-revision ( 2021 ). 26. ↵ Cryle , P. , et al. Practical Guidance Notes for Urban Ecosystem Accounting . A Draft Report by Working Group on Urban Ecosystem Accounting in Australia . https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/practical-guidance-notes-urban-ecosystem-accounting.pdf ( 2021 ). 27. ↵ EFTEC-DEFRA . A Study to Scope and Develop Urban Natural Capital Accounts for the UK . www.eftec.co.uk ( 2017 ). 28. ↵ Grenier , M. , Lantz , N. , Soulard , F. & Wang , J . The use of combined Landsat and Radarsat data for urban ecosystem accounting in Canada . Stat J IAOS 36 , 797 – 806 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl 29. Farrell , C. A. , et al. Applying the system of environmental economic accounting- ecosystem accounting (Seea-ea) framework at catchment scale to develop ecosystem extent and condition accounts . One Ecosystem 6 , ( 2021 ). 30. ↵ Grunewald , K. , et al. Hierarchical classification system of germany’s ecosystems as basis for an ecosystem accounting – methods and first results . One Ecosystem 5 , ( 2020 ). 31. ↵ Petersen , J. E. , Mancosu , E. & King , S . Ecosystem extent accounts for Europe . Ecosyst Serv 57 , ( 2022 ). 32. Gomez Cardona , C. J. , et al . Accounting of marine and coastal ecosystems at the Ramsar Site, Estuarine Delta System of the Magdalena River, Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta , Colombia. One Ecosystem 8 , ( 2023 ). 33. Bruzón , A. G. , Arrogante-Funes , P. , Martínez de Anguita P. , Novillo , C. J . & Santos-Martín , F . How the ecosystem extent is changing: A national-level accounting approach and application . Science of the Total Environment 815 , ( 2022 ). 34. ↵ De Fioravante , P. et al. Ecosystem Mapping and Accounting in Italy Based on Copernicus and National Data through Integration of EAGLE and SEEA-EA Frameworks . Land (Basel ) 12 , ( 2023 ). 35. Office for National Statistics . Habitat Extent and Condition, Natural Capital, UK: 2022 . https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/habitatextentandc onditionnaturalcapitaluk/2022 ( 2022 ). 36. Office for National Statistics . UK Natural Capital: Urban Accounts . https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2019 ( 2019 ). 37. Dijkstra , L. & Poelman , H . A Harmonised Definition of Cities and Rural Areas: The New Degree of Urbanisation Working Papers . ( 2014 ). 38. Garnåsjordet , A. , et al. Urban Green. Integrating Ecosystem Extent and Condition as a Basis for Ecosystem Accounts . Examples from the Oslo Region . http://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers ( 2020 ). 39. ↵ Heris , M. , et al. Piloting urban ecosystem accounting for the United States . Ecosyst Serv 48 , ( 2021 ). 40. Grilli , G. , Luisetti , T. , Thornton , A. & Donovan , D . Developing ecosystem accounts for the marine and coastal environment: Limitations, opportunities and lessons learned from the United Kingdom experience . in Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics vol. 8 (Center for the Blue Economy, 2021 ). 41. Schwarz , N . Urban form revisited-Selecting indicators for characterising European cities . Landsc Urban Plan 96 , 29 – 47 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 42. ↵ McDonnell , M. J. & Hahs , A. K . The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: Current status and future directions . Landscape Ecology vol. 23 1143 – 1155 Preprint at doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9253-4 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science 43. ↵ Lemoine-Rodríguez , R. , Inostroza , L. & Zepp , H . The global homogenization of urban form. An assessment of 194 cities across time . Landsc Urban Plan 204 , ( 2020 ). 44. Wang , J. , et al. Discussion Paper 1.2: Treatment of Ecosystems Assets in Urban Areas . Paper Submitted to the SEEA EEA Technical Committee as Input to the Revision of the Technical Recommendations in Support of the System on Environmental-Economic Accounting . ( 2019 ). 45. ↵ Mahtta , R. , Mahendra , A. & Seto , K. C . Building up or spreading out? typologies of urban growth across 478 cities of 1 million+ . Environmental Research Letters 14 , ( 2019 ). 46. Taubenböck , H. et al. Seven city types representing morphologic configurations of cities across the globe . Cities 105 , ( 2020 ). 47. ↵ Vallecillo , S. , et al. EU-Wide Methodology to Map and Assess Ecosystem Condition Towards a Common Approach Consistent with a Global Statistical Standard . vol. JRC130782 ( 2022 ). 48. Stokes , E. C. & Seto , K. C . Characterizing and measuring urban landscapes for sustainability . Environmental Research Letters 14 , ( 2019 ). 49. Mitz , E. , Kremer , P. , Larondelle , N. & Stewart , J. D . Structure of Urban Landscape and Surface Temperature: A Case Study in Philadelphia , PA. Front Environ Sci 9 , ( 2021 ). 50. ↵ Zhou , W. , Cadenasso , M. L. , Schwarz , K. & Pickett , S. T. A . Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in urban landscapes: Integrating visual interpretation and object-based classification . Remote Sens (Basel ) 6 , 3369 – 3386 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 51. ↵ Larondelle , N. , Haase , D. & Kabisch , N . Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities . Global Environmental Change 26 , 119 – 129 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 52. ↵ Zhao , C. & Sander , H. A . Assessing the sensitivity of urban ecosystem service maps to input spatial data resolution and method choice . Landsc Urban Plan 175 , 11 – 22 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 53. Normyle , A. et al. An Indigenous perspective on ecosystem accounting: Challenges and opportunities revealed by an Australian case study . Ambio 51 , 2227 – 2239 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl 54. Keith , H. , et al. Discussion Paper 2.1: Purpose and Role of Ecosystem Condition Accounts . Paper Submitted to the SEEA EEA Technical Committee as input to the Revision of the Technical Recommendations in Support of the System on Environmental-Economic . ( 2019 ). 55. ↵ Karr , J. R. , Larson , E. R. & Chu , E. W . Ecological integrity is both real and valuable . Conservation Science and Practice vol. 4 Preprint at doi: 10.1111/csp2.583 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 56. Kervinio , Y. , Surun , C. , Comte , A. & Levrel , H . Defining ecological liabilities and structuring ecosystem accounts to support the transition to sustainable societies . One Ecosystem 8 , ( 2023 ). 57. Markandya , A . Discussion Paper 5.5: Ecosystem Disservices and Externalities . Paper Submitted to the Expert Meeting on Advancing the Measurement of Ecosystem Services for Ecosystem Accounting . ( 2019 ). 58. ↵ La Notte , A. , Vallecillo , S. , Marques , A. & Maes , J . Beyond the economic boundaries to account for ecosystem services . Ecosyst Serv 35 , 116 – 129 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 59. Hein , L. , et al. Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems . Science vol. 367 514 – 515 Preprint at doi: 10.1126/science.aaz8901 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 60. La Notte , A. & Marques , A . Adjusted macroeconomic indicators to account for ecosystem degradation: an illustrative example . Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 5 , 133 – 143 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 61. La Notte , A. & Marques , A . The role of enabling actors in ecosystem service accounting . One Ecosystem 2 , ( 2017 ). 62. Kopperoinen , L. , et al. Urban Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Pilot in the Nordic Cities . ( Nordic Council of Ministers , 2022 ). doi: 10.6027/temanord2022-557 . OpenUrl CrossRef 63. Czúcz , B. et al. Selection criteria for ecosystem condition indicators . Ecological Indicators vol. 133 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108376 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 64. Tanács , E. , et al. Assessing ecosystem condition at the national level in Hungary - indicators, approaches, challenges . One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 65. La Notte , A. , et al. The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) in Europe: twelve lessons learned from empirical ecosystem service accounting . One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 66. La Notte , A. & Dalmazzone , S . Sustainability assessment and causality nexus through ecosystem service accounting: The case of water purification in Europe . J Environ Manage 223 , 964 – 974 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 67. La Notte , A. , Vallecillo , S. & Maes , J . Capacity as “virtual stock” in ecosystem services accounting . Ecol Indic 98 , 158 – 163 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 68. La Notte , A. , Czucz , B. , Vallecillo , S. , Polce , C. & Maes , J . Ecosystem condition underpins the generation of ecosystem services: An accounting perspective . One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 69. Edens , B. , et al. Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard . Ecosyst Serv 54 , ( 2022 ). 70. Hein , L. et al. Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting . PLoS One 11 , ( 2016 ). 71. Schröter , M. , Barton , D. N. , Remme , R. P. & Hein , L . Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway . Ecol Indic 36 , 539 – 551 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 72. La Notte , A. et al. Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention . Ecosyst Serv 23 , 18 – 29 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 73. Vallecillo , S. , La Notte , A. , Zulian , G. , Ferrini , S. & Maes , J . Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people . Ecol Modell 392 , 196 – 211 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 74. ↵ Ogilvy , S. et al. Accounting for liabilities related to ecosystem degradation . Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 4 , 261 – 276 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 75. Remme , R. P. , Schröter , M. & Hein , L . Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services . Ecosyst Serv 10 , 6 – 18 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 76. ↵ Hein , L. , et al. Ecosystem accounting in the Netherlands . Ecosyst Serv 44 , ( 2020 ). 77. Mattsson , E. , Eriksson , F. A. , Malmaeus , M. & anctuary, M. S . Ecosystem Accounting in the Nordic Countries . (Nordisk Ministerråd, 2022 ). doi: 10.6027/temanord2022-554 . OpenUrl CrossRef 78. Bordt , M. & Saner , M. A . A critical review of ecosystem accounting and services frameworks . One Ecosystem 3 , ( 2018 ). 79. Normyle , A. , Vardon , M. & Doran , B . Ecosystem accounting and the need to recognise Indigenous perspectives . Humanities and Social Sciences Communications vol. 9 Preprint at doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01149-w ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 80. Normyle , A. , Vardon , M. & Doran , B . Aligning Indigenous values and cultural ecosystem services for ecosystem accounting: A review . Ecosystem Services vol. 59 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101502 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 81. Atkinson , G. & Ovando , P . Distributional Issues in Natural Capital Accounting: An Application to Land Ownership and Ecosystem Services in Scotland . Environ Resour Econ (Dordr ) 81 , 215 – 241 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 82. Femia , A. M. & Capriolo , A . Beyond valuation. Monetary aggregates for the SEEA-EA . The Italian proposal. One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 83. No Author . Discussion Paper 3.1: Proposed Concepts, Definitions and Terminology for Ecosystem Services for the Revised SEEA EEA. Paper Submitted to the SEEA EEA Technical Committee as Input to the Revision of the Technical Recommendations in Support of the System on Environmental-Economic Accounting . 84. Sylla , M. , et al. Methodological and empirical challenges of SEEA EEA in developing contexts: Towards ecosystem service accounts in the Kyrgyz Republic . Ecosyst Serv 50 , ( 2021 ). 85. Obst , C. , Hein , L. & Edens , B . National Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets and Their Services . Environ Resour Econ (Dordr ) 64 , 1 – 23 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 86. ↵ Barton , D. N . Value ‘generalisation’ in ecosystem accounting-using Bayesian networks to infer the asset value of regulating services for urban trees in Oslo . One Ecosystem 8 , ( 2023 ). 87. ↵ Schenau , S. , et al. Valuing ecosystem services and ecosystem assets for The Netherlands . One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 88. Turpie , J. K. , Letley , G. K. , Weiss , J. & Schmidt , K . Accounting for ecosystem services and asset value: pilot accounts for KwaZulu-Natal , South Africa. One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 89. Notte, A. La . Accounting for the Ecosystem Services Generated by Nature-Based Solutions to Measure Urban Resilience . A Methodological Proposal. Economics and policy of energy and the environment https://www.ft.com/content/7b238d6e- ( 2018 ). 90. ↵ Bagstad , K. J. et al. Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union . Ecosystem Services vol. 52 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101359 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 91. Dvarskas , A . Experimental ecosystem accounting for coastal and marine areas: A pilot application of the SEEA-EEA in Long Island coastal bays . Mar Policy 100 , 141 – 151 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 92. Vačkářů , D. & Grammatikopoulou , I . Toward development of ecosystem asset accounts at the national level . Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 5 , 36 – 46 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 93. Comte , A. et al. Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges . Ecosystem Services vol. 58 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101486 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 94. Chen , Y. , Vardon , M. , Keith , H. , Van Dijk , A. & Doran , B . Linking ecosystem accounting to environmental planning and management: Opportunities and barriers using a case study from the Australian Capital Territory . Environ Sci Policy 142 , 206 – 219 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 95. UNEP-WCMC . Urban Ecosystem Accounting: Concepts and Implementation . https://resources.unep-wcmc.org/products/WCMC_PR023 ( 2022 ). 96. Maes , J. , et al. Discussion Paper 2.2: Review of Ecosystem Condition Accounting Case Studies: Lessons Learned and Options for Developing Condition Accounts . Paper Submitted to the SEEA EEA Technical Committee as Input to the Revision of the Technical Recommendations in Support of the System on Environmental-Economic Accounting . ( 2019 ). 97. ↵ Vallecillo , S. , La Notte , A. , Ferrini , S. & Maes , J . How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level . Ecosyst Serv 40 , ( 2019 ). 98. Cimburova , Z. & Barton , D. N . The potential of geospatial analysis and Bayesian networks to enable i-Tree Eco assessment of existing tree inventories . Urban For Urban Green 55 , ( 2020 ). 99. Remme , R. P. , Edens , B. , Schröter , M. & Hein , L . Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands . Ecological Economics 112 , 116 – 128 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 100. Grammatikopoulou , I. , et al. Value transfer in ecosystem accounting applications . Journal of Environmental Management vol. 326 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116784 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 101. Cummins , G. H. , Navarro , M. L. , Griffin , K. , Partridge , J. & Langlois , T. J . A global review of ocean ecosystem accounts and their data: Lessons learned and implications for marine policy . Mar Policy 153 , ( 2023 ). 102. Vallecillo , S. et al. Ecosystem Services Accounting : Part I : Outdoor Recreation and Crop Pollination . vol. JRC110321 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 ). 103. Vallecillo , S. et al. Ecosystem Services Accounting. Part II-Pilot Accounts for Crop and Timber Provision, Global Climate Regulation and Flood Control . (Publications Office of the European Union , Luxembourg , 2019 ). doi: 10.2760/631588 . OpenUrl CrossRef 104. Schröter , M. , Remme , R. P. , Sumarga , E. , Barton , D. N. & Hein , L . Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting . Ecosyst Serv 13 , 64 – 69 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 105. Lankia , T. , Neuvonen , M. , Pouta , E. , Sievänen , T. & Torvelainen , J . Outdoor recreation in ecosystem service accounting: pilot accounts from Finland . Scand J For Res 35 , 186 – 197 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 106. Lankia , T. , Lintunen , J. , Neuvonen , M. , Pouta , E. & Store , R . Piloting accounts for recreational ecosystem services: Quality, use, and monetary value of freshwaters in Finland . Water Resour Econ 41 , ( 2023 ). 107. Capriolo , A. , Boschetto , R. G. , Mascolo , R. A. , Balbi , S. & Villa , F . Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy . Ecosyst Serv 46 , ( 2020 ). 108. Capriolo , A. , et al. How regulating and cultural services of ecosystems have changed over time in Italy . One Ecosystem 7 , ( 2022 ). 109. Nedkov , S. et al. Modeling water regulation ecosystem services: A review in the context of ecosystem accounting . Ecosystem Services vol. 56 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101458 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 110. Warnell , K. J. D. et al. Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast . Ecosyst Serv 43 , ( 2020 ). 111. Bagstad , K. J. et al. Towards ecosystem accounts for Rwanda: Tracking 25 years of change in flows and potential supply of ecosystem services . People and Nature 2 , 163 – 188 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 112. Braun , D. , Damm , A. , Hein , L. , Petchey , O. L. & Schaepman , M. E . Spatio-temporal trends and trade-offs in ecosystem services: An Earth observation based assessment for Switzerland between 2004 and 2014 . Ecol Indic 89 , 828 – 839 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 113. United Nations Statistics Division . Implementation Strategy for the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting . ( 2021 ). 114. ↵ Cordella , M. , Gonzalez-Redin , J. , Lodeiro , R. U. & Garcia , D. A . Assessing impacts to biodiversity and ecosystems: Understanding and exploiting synergies between Life Cycle Assessment and Natural Capital Accounting . in Procedia CIRP vol. 105 134 – 139 (Elsevier B.V., 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 115. Bukvareva , E. N. et al. Teeb-russia: Towards national ecosystem accounting . Sustainability (Switzerland ) 13 , ( 2021 ). 116. ↵ de Jong , R. , et al. Ecosystem Accounting Limburg Province, the Netherlands. Part I: Physical Supply and Condition Accounts . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294086184 ( 2016 ) doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3422.9520 . OpenUrl CrossRef 117. ↵ La Notte , A. & Zulian , G . An Ecosystem Services-Based Approach to Frame NBS in Urban Context . in Nature-Based Solutions for More Sustainable Cities – A Framework Approach for Planning and Evaluation 47 – 65 (Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 2021 ). doi: 10.1108/978-1-80043-636-720211005 . OpenUrl CrossRef 118. ↵ Dong , T. , Jiao , L. , Xu , G. , Yang , L. & Liu , J . Towards sustainability? Analyzing changing urban form patterns in the United States, Europe, and China . Science of the Total Environment 671 , 632 – 643 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 119. European Commission & Eurostat. Applying the Degree of Urbanisation – A Methodological Manual to Define Cities , Towns and Rural Areas for International Comparisons. (Publications Office of the European Union , 2021 ). doi: 10.2785/706535 . OpenUrl CrossRef 120. ↵ Taubenböck , H. et al. To be, or not to be ‘urban’? A multi-modal method for the differentiated measurement of the degree of urbanization . Comput Environ Urban Syst 95 , ( 2022 ). 121. Wolff , M. , Haase , D. & Haase , A . Compact or spread? A quantitative spatial model of urban areas in Europe since 1990 . PLoS ONE vol. 13 Preprint at doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192326 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 122. ↵ Taubenböck , H. , Wurm , M. , Geiß , C. , Dech , S. & Siedentop , S . Urbanization between compactness and dispersion: designing a spatial model for measuring 2D binary settlement landscape configurations . Int J Digit Earth 12 , 679 – 698 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 123. Esch , T. et al. Dimensioning urbanization - An advanced procedure for characterizing human settlement properties and patterns using spatial network analysis . Applied Geography vol. 55 212 – 228 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.09.009 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 124. Demuzere , M. et al. A global map of local climate zones to support earth system modelling and urban-scale environmental science . Earth Syst Sci Data 14 , 3835 – 3873 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 125. Reis , J. P. , Silva , E. A. & Pinho , P . Spatial metrics to study urban patterns in growing and shrinking cities . Urban Geogr 37 , 246 – 271 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 126. Huang , J. , Lu , X. X. & Sellers , J. M . A global comparative analysis of urban form: Applying spatial metrics and remote sensing . Landsc Urban Plan 82 , 184 – 197 ( 2007 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 127. ↵ Stathakis , D. & Tsilimigkas , G . Measuring the compactness of European medium-sized cities by spatial metrics based on fused data sets . Int J Image Data Fusion 6 , 42 – 64 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 128. Quan , S. J. & Bansal , P . A systematic review of GIS-based local climate zone mapping studies . Building and Environment vol. 196 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107791 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 129. Stewart , I. D. & Oke , T. R . Local climate zones for urban temperature studies . Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93 , 1879 – 1900 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 130. Stewart , J. D. , Kremer , P. , Shakya , K. M. , Conway , M. & Saad , A . Outdoor Atmospheric Microbial Diversity Is Associated With Urban Landscape Structure and Differs From Indoor-Transit Systems as Revealed by Mobile Monitoring and Three-Dimensional Spatial Analysis . Front Ecol Evol 9 , ( 2021 ). 131. Stewart , J. D. & Kremer , P . Temporal change in relationships between urban structure and surface temperature . Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 49 , 2297 – 2311 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 132. Cummings , L. E. , Stewart , J. D. , Kremer , P. & Shakya , K. M . Predicting citywide distribution of air pollution using mobile monitoring and three-dimensional urban structure . Sustain Cities Soc 76 , ( 2022 ). 133. ↵ Kremer , P. , Larondelle , N. , Zhang , Y. , Pasles , E. & Haase , D . Within-class and neighborhood effects on the relationship between composite urban classes and surface temperature . Sustainability (Switzerland ) 10 , ( 2018 ). 134. ↵ Zhou , W. , Pickett , S. T. A. & Cadenasso , M. L . Shifting concepts of urban spatial heterogeneity and their implications for sustainability . Landsc Ecol 32 , 15 – 30 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 135. ↵ Cadenasso , M. L. , Pickett , S. T. A. & Schwarz , K . Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: Reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment vol. 5 80 – 88 Preprint at doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[80:SHIUER]2.0.CO;2 ( 2007 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 136. Qureshi , S. , Haase , D. & Coles , R . The Theorized Urban Gradient (TUG) method - A conceptual framework for socio-ecological sampling in complex urban agglomerations . Ecol Indic 36 , 100 – 110 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 137. Huang , F. et al. Mapping local climate zones for cities: A large review . Remote Sensing of Environment vol. 292 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2023.113573 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 138. Salvati , L. & Sabbi , A . Identifying urban diffusion in compact cities through a comparative multivariate procedure . Annals of Regional Science 53 , 557 – 575 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 139. Maes , J. , et al. A review of ecosystem condition accounts: Lessons learned and options for further development . One Ecosystem vol. 5 1 – 19 Preprint at doi: 10.3897/oneeco.5.e53485 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 140. Alberti , M . Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability vol. 2 178 – 184 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.07.002 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science 141. ↵ Su , M. , Fath , B. D. & Yang , Z . Urban ecosystem health assessment: A review . Science of the Total Environment vol. 408 2425 – 2434 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.009 ( 2010 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 142. Roche , P. K. & Campagne , C. S . From ecosystem integrity to ecosystem condition: a continuity of concepts supporting different aspects of ecosystem sustainability . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability vol. 29 63 – 68 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.009 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 143. Su , M. et al. Urban ecosystem health assessment and its application in management: A multi-scale perspective . Entropy 15 , ( 2013 ). 144. ↵ VanderWilde , C. P. & Newell , J. P . Ecosystem services and life cycle assessment: A bibliometric review. Resources , Conservation and Recycling vol. 169 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105461 ( 2021 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 145. ↵ Rugani , B. , Osset , P. , Blanc , O. & Benetto , E . Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment . Land vol. 12 Preprint at doi: 10.3390/land12061171 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 146. ↵ Oginah , S. A. , Posthuma , L. , Maltby , L. , Hauschild , M. & Fantke , P . Linking freshwater ecotoxicity to damage on ecosystem services in life cycle assessment . Environment International vol. 171 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107705 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 147. ↵ Mokany , K. , Harwood , T. D. & Ferrier , S . Improving links between environmental accounting and scenario-based cumulative impact assessment for better-informed biodiversity decisions . Journal of Applied Ecology 56 , 2732 – 2741 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 148. Vargas , L. , Willemen , L. & Hein , L . Assessing the Capacity of Ecosystems to Supply Ecosystem Services Using Remote Sensing and An Ecosystem Accounting Approach . Environ Manage 63 , 1 – 15 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl PubMed 149. ↵ Keith , D. A. , Ferrer-paris , J. R. , Nicholson , E. & Kingsford , R. T . IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0: Descriptive Profiles for Biomes and Ecosystem Functional Groups. IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0: descriptive profiles for biomes and ecosystem functional groups ( 2020 ). doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.13.en. 150. ↵ Larondelle , N. & Haase , D . Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities . Ecol Indic 29 , 179 – 190 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 151. ↵ Hamstead , Z. A. , Kremer , P. , Larondelle , N. , McPhearson , T. & Haase , D . Classification of the heterogeneous structure of urban landscapes (STURLA) as an indicator of landscape function applied to surface temperature in New York City . Ecol Indic 70 , 574 – 585 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 152. ↵ Larondelle , N. , Hamstead , Z. A. , Kremer , P. , Haase , D. & McPhearson , T . Applying a novel urban structure classification to compare the relationships of urban structure and surface temperature in Berlin and New York City . Applied Geography 53 , 427 – 437 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 153. Keith , D. A. et al. A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems . Nature 610 , 513 – 518 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 154. Beck , H. E. et al. Present and future köppen-geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution . Sci Data 5 , ( 2018 ). 155. ↵ Su , M. et al. Urban ecosystem health assessment: Perspectives and Chinese practice . Int J Environ Res Public Health 10 , 5874 – 5885 ( 2013 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 156. ↵ Lu , Y. et al. Ecosystem health towards sustainability . Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 1 , 1 – 15 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl 157. ↵ United Nations . Global Assessment of Environmental-Economic Accounting and Supporting Statistics 2023 . https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-15-09-01.pdf . ( 2024 ). 158. ↵ Lange , S. , et al. Progress on ecosystem accounting in Europe . Ecosyst Serv 57 , ( 2022 ). 159. ↵ European Parliament & Council of the European Union . REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 as Regards Introducing Environmental Economic Accounts Modules . 1 – 32 ( 2024 ). 160. ↵ European Parliament & Council of the European Union . REGULATION (EU) 2024/1991 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 June 2024 on Nature Restoration and Amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (Text with EEA Relevance). Official Journal of the European Union 1 – 93 ( 2024 ). 161. ↵ United Nations . Virtual Expert Forum on SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting 2020 . The Virtual Expert Forum on SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) 2020 https://seea.un.org/events/virtual-expert-forum-seea-experimental-ecosystem-accounting-2020 ( 2020 ). 162. ↵ Kaur , A. , Sharma , R. , Mishra , P. , Sinhababu , A. & Chakravarty , R . Visual Research Discovery Using Connected Papers: A Use Case of Blockchain in Libraries . Serials Librarian 83 , 186 – 196 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl 163. ↵ Lence , A. et al. Automatic digitization of paper electrocardiograms – A systematic review . Journal of Electrocardiology vol. 80 125 – 132 Preprint at doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2023.05.009 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 164. ↵ Liu , C. & Ali , N. L . Co-citation and Bibliographic Coupling Based on Connected Papers: Review of Public Opinion Research in a Broad Sense in the West . Asian Soc Sci 18 , 29 ( 2022 ). 165. ↵ Babí Almenar , J. , et al. Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges . Land use policy 100 , 104898 ( 2021 ). 166. ↵ Luederitz , C. et al. A review of urban ecosystem services: Six key challenges for future research . Ecosyst Serv 14 , 98 – 112 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 167. ↵ Page , M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . The BMJ 372 , ( 2021 ). 168. ↵ Page , M. J. et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews . The BMJ 372 , ( 2021 ). 169. ↵ United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development & World Bank Group . System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 : Experimental Ecosystem Accounting . https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesf/seriesF_112e.pdf ( 2014 ). View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted March 13, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts Javier Babí Almenar , Chiara Cortinovis , Sara Vallecillo , Davide Geneletti , Balint Czucz , Federica Marando , Grazia Zulian , Anna M Addamo , Alessandra La Notte , Renato Casagrandi bioRxiv 2025.03.05.641195; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.05.641195 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts Javier Babí Almenar , Chiara Cortinovis , Sara Vallecillo , Davide Geneletti , Balint Czucz , Federica Marando , Grazia Zulian , Anna M Addamo , Alessandra La Notte , Renato Casagrandi bioRxiv 2025.03.05.641195; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.05.641195 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Ecology Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7616) Biochemistry (17625) Bioengineering (13852) Bioinformatics (41825) Biophysics (21397) Cancer Biology (18524) Cell Biology (25417) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13350) Ecology (19858) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24277) Genetics (15581) Genomics (22459) Immunology (17698) Microbiology (40278) Molecular Biology (17134) Neuroscience (88400) Paleontology (666) Pathology (2823) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4812) Physiology (7632) Plant Biology (15106) Scientific Communication and Education (2042) Synthetic Biology (4281) Systems Biology (9807) Zoology (2266)